cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Items lost in the field

John_SD
Whiz

Well, **bleep**, I "lost" a circular polarizing filter in the field yesterday morning. What's worse is that I wasted an hour of good eary-morning light by the lakeside retracing my steps trying to find it, to no avail. It was a 67mm Tiffen, the first polarizing filter I bought for my Canon 18-135 STM lens. Inexpensive, but better than you might think, and certainly better than nothing. Better than losing the B+W.

 

I believe I had it screwed in securely, but must have loosened it as I turned the filter here and there while shooting. 

 

I believe this is a first for me. I consoled myself by recalling a conversation I had with a guy once who "lost" a ReallyRightStuff tripod. He was at the edge of the woods and had been shooting for a half-hour or so, and decided to take his camera off the tripod and go into the woods itself for a "couple minutes" to shoot there. When he returned about an hour later, the tripod was gone. I have a feeling he paid a bit more than $29.99 for that tripod LOL. But still...it sucks to lose items in the field. 

21 REPLIES 21


@John_SD wrote:

 

Another thing Photoshop can't do for you is protect your lens element when you're shooting at the tidepools around splashing salt water, or in the California deserts when the wind is blowing. Neutral density fliters can offer some protection, but they can't perform the double-duty polarizers do. And by shooting in the desert, I don't mean pulling off the road and shooting from the safety of a "Viewpoint." Photoshop would be fine for those snapshots. 


No, Photoshop cannot protect your lens, but a Clear filter can.  But, a high quality Clear filter allows you to render better color than any CPL, UV, or ND filter.  IMHO, one thing that separates Canon from the crowd is the color rendering.  

 

Once, I began using B+W filters as protection filters, I noticed an immediate improvement in the color rendering.  I think I had some improvements in exposure metering, and automatic white balance, too.

Besides, if I were shooting around splashing salt water, I would want more protection for my gear than a mere lens filter.  I would go for the full rain cover to protect against the salt mist.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


@Waddizzle wrote:

@John_SD wrote:

 

Another thing Photoshop can't do for you is protect your lens element when you're shooting at the tidepools around splashing salt water, or in the California deserts when the wind is blowing. Neutral density fliters can offer some protection, but they can't perform the double-duty polarizers do. And by shooting in the desert, I don't mean pulling off the road and shooting from the safety of a "Viewpoint." Photoshop would be fine for those snapshots. 


No, Photoshop cannot protect your lens, but a Clear filter can.  But, a high quality Clear filter allows you to render better color than any CPL, UV, or ND filter.  IMHO, one thing that separates Canon from the crowd is the color rendering.  

 

Once, I began using B+W filters as protection filters, I noticed an immediate improvement in the color rendering.  I think I had some improvements in exposure metering, and automatic white balance, too.

Besides, if I were shooting around splashing salt water, I would want more protection for my gear than a mere lens filter.  I would go for the full rain cover to protect against the salt mist.


I've never used a Clear filter, as it doesn't sound like it would be useful for me in the environements I'm in. Can such a filter darken washed-out desert skies? 

 

Ernie and others seem to spend a great deal of time making corrections and enhancements in Photoshop. While I don't doubt its power, I want to be able to do as much as I can in-camera, out in the field. IMHO, a CPL is absolutely essential in the desert and when you're knee-deep in saltwater.

 

Your suggestion about the camera cover is well-taken, though, and I suppose I've been lucky that I haven't caught a rogue wave at the tidepools, though as someone who grew up on surfboards, I'm pretty good at reading the waves and knowing when a break is coming, even when my back is to the incoming. They have a certain sound we're attuned to out here. Now rip currents are another matter LOL. 

 

 

I've never used a Clear filter, as it doesn't sound like it would be useful for me in the environements I'm in. Can such a filter darken washed-out desert skies?

 

No, a Clear filter cannot darken skies.  But, post editing software can do it with just a few clicks.  The only thing a filter can do that software cannot is polarize the light entering the lens.  But, software can do an excellent job of bringing out the details in many shots that seem to have washed out skies.

Also, an HDR shot can clean up a washed out sky, too.  Photoshop has a remarkable “dehaze” filter.  But, go with what works for you.  Personally, I would be more inclined to use a UV filter, or a graduated ND filter, to clean up a sky, instead of a CPL filter.  Software can reproduce the effects of UV or ND filter, but not a CPL filter.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


@Waddizzle wrote:

I've never used a Clear filter, as it doesn't sound like it would be useful for me in the environements I'm in. Can such a filter darken washed-out desert skies?

 

No, a Clear filter cannot darken skies.  But, post editing software can do it with just a few clicks.  The only thing a filter can do that software cannot is polarize the light entering the lens.  But, software can do an excellent job of bringing out the details in many shots that seem to have washed out skies.

Also, an HDR shot can clean up a washed out sky, too.  Photoshop has a remarkable “dehaze” filter.  But, go with what works for you.  Personally, I would be more inclined to use a UV filter, or a graduated ND filter, to clean up a sky, instead of a CPL filter.  Software can reproduce the effects of UV or ND filter, but not a CPL filter.


One factor that has a limiting effect on the utility of a polarizer is that not all of the light from, say, a washed out sky enters the lens polarized in the same direction. So different parts of the sky will be affected differently. That can impart a degree of unreality to a wide landscape shot. Photoshop, which is indifferent to the polarization of the light that formed the image, doesn't have that problem. Of course the sky is what it is, and what constitutes "reality" in such a case is in the eye of the beholder. But the eye of the beholder is, after all, the intended target.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

"Photoshop, which is indifferent to the polarization of the light that formed the image,..."

 

Which is where you get lost, my friend.  The ability to make such a photo look "right" is in the ability and talent of the PS user.  There is nothing PS can not imitate that a polarizer can do.  Depending on the "ability and talent of the PS user."

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@Waddizzle wrote:

I've never used a Clear filter, as it doesn't sound like it would be useful for me in the environements I'm in. Can such a filter darken washed-out desert skies?

 

No, a Clear filter cannot darken skies.  But, post editing software can do it with just a few clicks.  The only thing a filter can do that software cannot is polarize the light entering the lens.  But, software can do an excellent job of bringing out the details in many shots that seem to have washed out skies.

Also, an HDR shot can clean up a washed out sky, too.  Photoshop has a remarkable “dehaze” filter.  But, go with what works for you.  Personally, I would be more inclined to use a UV filter, or a graduated ND filter, to clean up a sky, instead of a CPL filter.  Software can reproduce the effects of UV or ND filter, but not a CPL filter.


6B967110-F771-41D3-9795-5DFC6D190DD2.jpeg

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

_OS18082-Edit.jpg

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

_OS18084-Edit.jpg

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

"I've never used a Clear filter, as it doesn't sound like it would be useful for me in the environements I'm in. Can such a filter darken washed-out desert skies?"

 

Here are a couple of before and after shots.  One is straight of the camera, with only WB and Lens correction.  The second has 20-30 seconds of editing, which can then be applied to an entire series of shots with a couple of clicks.

 

I was looking at a storm cloud today, with the sun just out of the frame to the right.

 

2520200086442018_11_101003079.jpg

 

This has the "dehaze" filter applied at +30.

 

2520200086442018_11_101003079-2.jpg

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

"...it sucks to lose items in the field."

 

Yes it does. Smiley Frustrated We all have been there. Both WS wins and lost gear! Smiley LOL

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Announcements